In a Nov. 21 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard touts how Newt Gingrich said he would not participate in a debate that had MSNBC's Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann moderating, claiming they would be "relentlessly hostile." But Sheppard conveniently omitted a statement by Olbermann in the Mediaite article he links to as a source for the Gingrich comment that he has never moderated a GOP debate.

Sheppard updated his post to link to a NewsBusters post about a May 2007 GOP presidential debate in which Matthews served as a moderator, claiming that he "asking really silly questions." Asking silly questions, however, is not the same as asking "relentlessly hostile" questions, which Gingrich seemed to accuse Matthews of doing. Even Brent Baker, who wrote the 2007 post, couldn't come up with any genuinely hostile questions from Matthews, instead complaining that he was "bizarrely attacking White House aide Karl Rove and favorite target Scooter Libby."

But where's the hypocrisy, you ask? Well, back in 2007, Sheppard was uncritically repeating how Bill O'Reilly "was none too pleased" about how Democratic presidentical candidates pulled out of a planned presidential debate sponsored by Fox News, an action that came after Fox News chief Roger Ailes (supposedly jokingly) compared Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden. Sheppard asserted that "Democrats succumbing to this pressure does not serve their interests of taking over the White House in 2008."

So, according to Sheppard, Democratic presidential candidates avoiding an allegedly biased news outlet is the result of succumbing to pressure, while a Republican avoiding an allegedly biased news outlet is a principled stand. Got that?

New Article -- Out There, Exhibit 52: CNS' Obama Word ObsessionTopic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com, led by editor in chief Terry Jeffrey, is fixated on every single word the president says -- or doesn't say. Read more >>

Ellis Washington wouldn't know the truth if it bit him, so it's no surprise that Washington has swallowed every false and misleading bit of Glenn Beck's smears of George Soros, declaring in his Nov. 20 WorldNetDaily column that "Beck has been doing a masterful job over the past few weeks in his series exposing the man that gave America President Barack Obama, the radical socialist billionaire George Soros."

Washington dutifully repeated Beck's smear that "Soros worked for the Jewish Council, which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to forcibly carry out Nazi and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures." In fact, Soros played no role in taking the property of Jews.

After regurgitating Beck's propaganda regarding the methods Soros plans to use to control the world, Washington writes:

George Soros is a very evil man and has perfected the economic deconstruction of nations, which he learned firsthand as a child in Nazi-controlled Hungary and later throughout Communist-controlled Eastern Europe – except Soros needs no bullets for his revolution; he has a much more treacherous and inconspicuous weapon: money and propaganda.

Because George Soros is an atheist, he has no allusions about a heaven beyond the grave. Therefore, like most socialists, progressives, Darwinists and atheists, he is trying to establish a utopian society here on earth – a one-world centralized government without borders, religion or culture, one currency, one language and one puppet master to pull the strings of the useful idiots in power … while controlling the world from beyond the shadows.

Washington cares only about shadowy conspiracies. He cares nothing about the truth. No wonder he can't seem to keep a full-time job.

It seems inevitable that every conservative news outlet will, sooner or later, dirty its hands by latching onto the birther issue. The Washington Examiner plunges in by publishing a Nov. 22 op-ed by Diana West promoting one birther's case.

West wrote that Terrence Lakin, an Army lieutenant colonel, "faces an upcoming court-martial at Fort Meade, Md., on Dec. 14 for refusing to follow orders to redeploy to Afghanistan because of his conviction that the president hasn't proven his eligibility to hold office." Lakin is the birthers' latest hope for promoting their case, and West admits she's writing about him in part because "Lakin supporters have dubbed this week Terry Lakin Action Week, urging American citizens to take the occasion to call their congressional representatives about the case."

West highlighted a claim that "unknown, unknowable site authorities ‘took down' a new entry" on Lakin "almost as soon it went up." That claim comes straight from the birther fanatics at WorldNetDaily.

West lionized Lakin as "a senior military officer with an unblemished career" who is committing "what amounts to a historic act of civil disobedience for which he may well serve time in prison." The reality, meanwhile, is that a military judge has already ruled that, according to military law, the personal beliefs or convictions of a soldier are not enough for the soldier to deem an order illegal, that Lakin cannot introduce any evidence related to Obama's citizenship at his court-martial, and that the military court was not the proper venue for determining the eligibility of a president.

West peppered her op-ed with standard birther arguments:

Of course, Obama's failure to release his original 1961 birth certificate (which, contrary to mantralike misperception, has never been released) is just the beginning. There remains a startling dearth of documentation pertaining to Obama's progress through his 49 years of life that only begins with his birth certificate.

A gaping hole -- dare I say "memory hole"? -- seems to have consumed all possible Obama records from his education, health, family records, even his pre-presidential political career. But this subject is never taken seriously by the media or the political establishment, including, most glaringly, erstwhile GOP opponent John McCain, who, on being challenged on the eligibility question himself, should have called on candidate Obama to join him in releasing their bona fides together.

But even to suggest such a thing is to indulge in "conspiracy theories." Not surprisingly, Wikipedia defines this term for us as well, noting that it's "often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe."

Is the birther path really the one that Philip Anschutz's aggressively conservative publication wants to take? It appears so.

A Nov. 19 WorldNetDaily article, citing Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin cites "governmental military experts with extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems" to claim that the mystery contrail caputred on film off the California coast "emanated from a single source nozzle of a missile, probably made in China." But WND makes an apparently false claim and relies on conspiracy theorists in the process.

WND states that "the Federal Aviation Administration documents that there were no aircraft flying in the area at that time, the night of Nov. 8." But we could find no evidence that the FAA made such a claim.

What FAA spokesman Ian Gregor did say is that "The FAA ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the possible missile launch at approximately 5 p.m. (PT) on Monday. The radar replays did not reveal any fast moving, unidentified targets in that area," and that "The FAA did not approve any commercial space launches around the area Monday."

WND also cites "Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer who has worked at the National Security Agency and the Naval Data Automation Command," and "Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki of Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC" to back up the claim that the contrail came from a Chinese missile.

As we've noted, Madsen is a well-known conspiracy theorist with a long record of making dubious claims -- including claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate that apparently even WND didn't find credible enough to embrace. And Rapacki is a birther whom WND has credibly cited in an April 2009 article by Bob Unruh, touting Rapacki's claim that issue of Obama's eligibility to be president could become a "flashpoint" in the United States. Rapacki has also ranted about "the malice aforethought intent to ruin our Nation by radical Marxists, especially you Mr. Obama, who despise everything about America."

At $9.95 a month or $99 a year, G2 Bulletin is the remaining subscrption-based publication WND publishes. Yes, WND is charging for the rantings of conspiracy theorists.

MRC's Graham Has Another Anti-Gay FreakoutTopic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Tim Graham has beenwatchinglikeahawk for any evidence of gayness in the media. Why? Because to him, gay = liberal, and neither can really be allowed to exist in the media.

Which makes Graham's freakout in a Nov. 20 NewsBusters post over the Washington Post helping to sponsor a National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce conference in Washington and sending an employee to speak so utterly predictable: "The Post didn't just fund it. They participated. On Friday afternoon, the program touted their Communities of Color Business Initiative, with speaker Jonathan Capehart."

Graham went on to declare that "There's no question that what the Post is funding here is a socially liberal advocacy group."

Is it the liberalness or the gayness that offends Graham more? Or is the combination that pegs his squick meter?

In a Nov. 19 WorldNetDaily article announcing that right-wing actress Victoria Jackson has become a regular WND columnist, WND editor Joseph Farah is quoted as saying, "Victoria is a hoot. ... But she also really cares about her country – I mean deep, down in her heart and soul."

But Jackson's presence as a WND columnist likely has more to do with the fact that she hates President Obama almost as much as Farah does. She has called for Obama's impeachment, and in a previous WND appearance, she described Obama as "a Marxist, progressive, leftist, radical, socialist, communist dictator drunk with power" who has put America "under seige."

That's not comedy, that's hate. But Farah and WND don't appear to know the difference.

Parents and school officials who want to convey timeless values such as commitment, sexual responsibility, and physical and psychological well-being are wise to form a shield between kids and the LGBT lobby.

That lobby is telling kids that if only the American public would embrace homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy, children would feel free to "come out of the closet" and be comfortable with their same-sex attractions without fear of condemnation from their families, friends and, dare we say, religion.

It's all too typical for homosexual activists to justify their behavior by claiming "we're born that way" and then blame the tragic consequences of their actions on an intolerant society. But pushing this lie to young people is the ultimate death sentence for those who do not want to live a homosexual life. It offers no hope to youth who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions, and it's unconscionable to lure young people into behavior that has so many serious risks, and then deny them the opportunity for change.

The facts reveal that even in the most gay-friendly cultures, it's not society that is responsible for the consequences of homosexuality; it's the behavior. It really makes one ask the question, just what about the homosexual life gets better?

A Nov. 19 CNSNews.com article by Dan Joseph uncritically repeats a claim by House Minority Leader John Boehner regarding "the government’s reaction to General Motors and the bailout from the government" that "we’re talking about tens of thousands of Americans who were punished as a result of the government’s action." Joseph went on to quote a Boehner spokesman saying that Boehner was talking about "both the bondholders and the employees at the dealerships that were arbitrarily closed by the White House."

But fewer GM dealers have closed than originally announced, and many of those that did close were connected to brands that GM discontinued, while others merely lost the ability to sell certain GM brands while continuing to sell others.

Edmunds.com reports that effective Nov. 1, GM has a network of about 4,500 dealers, compared with 6,049 dealerships in June 2009. This represents four brand combinations in 15 brand combinations, compared to the previous setup that represented eight brands via 87 brand combinations.

Edmunds also reported that "GM recently reinstated many dealerships that were previously notified of franchise agreement terminations. On March 8, 2010, GM contacted 661 dealerships to negotiate terms of retaining the franchises. Other dealers contested the franchise agreement terminations through an arbitration process that ended on August 5, 2010." And the final closure list includes dealers of the discontinued Hummer and Pontiac brands.

Boehner's complaint about "dealerships that were arbitrarily closed" is a misnomer on two fronts. First, GM did not and cannot close dealerships -- it grants franchises to sell its cars, and what it did was seek to cancel or decline to renew franchises with individual dealers, which may or may not result in the closing of the dealer. That dealer also has the option of trying to obtain another new-car franchise, or to sell only used cars.

Second, GM and Chrysler did not act in an arbitrary manner in withdrawing franchises. As The Truth About Cars writes:

Over at GM, the problem is more complicated given that the Pontiac brand is being eliminated after GM’s recent efforts to build its Buick-GMC-Pontiac sales channel, and that GM is in the process of selling its Hummer, Saturn, and Saab brands. GM dealers will be evaluated based on four criteria to judge their viability. These criteria include:

Profitability

Capitalization

Customer service

Sales effectiveness.

To be part of the new, post-bankruptcy GM, these dealers have to perform well in all four categories.

For those dealers being eliminated, GM is offering some dealerships from $20,000 to $1 million to wind down their businesses over the next 17 months, the payment based on factors such as brands carried, regional sales rank, and current inventory.

That's hardly arbitrary. But Joseph didn't see fit to question a Republican making such a claim, which presumably is CNS editorial policy.

Robert Ringer is all about trying to keep certain people from voting, especially if they might vote contrary to his right-wing beliefs. We've previously noted Ringer's desire to strip voting rights from government workers; now he wants to deny the franchise to anyone under 30.

I was happy to see Ann Coulter's recent article about the need to repeal the 26th Amendment, as preventing immature young adults from voting is something I have long advocated. In some ways, it's more harmful than the 14th Amendment, whose misinterpretation encourages ready-to-deliver Mexican women to scamper across our southern border and give birth to freshly minted U.S. citizens.

In her article, Coulter focuses on research done over the past five years that has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes until then. This is important, she says, because the frontal lobes control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, and the ability to plan ahead and resist impulses.

My mind harkens back to the Barack Obama of the 1960s, who ran against an incumbent president, Lyndon Johnson, for the Democratic nomination in 1968. That particular version of Barack Obama went by the name of Robert F. Kennedy (RFK).

[...]

As Coulter points out, voters 18 to 29 years of age voted in favor of Obama by a whopping 66-31 percentage spread. And since they comprised 20 percent of the number of people who voted, they were able to put a social-justice guy into the White House whose policies are guaranteed to destroy their own futures.

Why would young adults who, for the most part, are reasonably intelligent and college educated, do such a self-destructive thing? Because, as we now know, the brain is not fully developed until age 25 – meaning that Obama's ascendancy to the power throne was made possible by millions of young adults whose brains were not even physiologically capable of making rational decisions!

Voting for people to govern other human beings is, at best, a questionable and corrupt activity – an activity that is all about lies, smear campaigns, money, pandering, bribery and thugs trying to intimidate voters with nightsticks. But if we must elect officials to govern us, I would go much further than just repealing the 26th Amendment.

I'd like to see an amendment that would require voters to be at least 30 years of age. Even though research indicates that the brain is fully developed by age 25, you have to give a newly formed adult brain a reasonable period of time to experience enough life to be in a position to shed itself of the bad habits it has developed over a period of 25 years. This is particularly true if a young adult has gone to college and been fed large doses of misinformation about history, economics and the Constitution.

[...]

I would be happy if Congress would just take the first step and revoke the voting rights of impressionable kids who are still engrossed in tree-hugging, the romanticizing of Che Guevera and other embarrassingly immature activities.

A man who refuses to acknowledge that Barack Obama is the president has little room to complain about the "embarrassingly immature activities" of others.

Ringer goes on to reiterate his desire to strip voting rights from government employees , adding to his hit list "people receiving government benefits." Ringer magnanimously offers an exception to this rule:

I would make an exception for Social Security recipients for now, because that's a program that was literally forced upon the entire population, and people have been misled into believing that they have "paid into the system." Hopefully, Social Security ultimately will be phased out, in which case it would no longer be an issue.

Actually, anyone who has had FICA taxes taken out of the paycheck has, in fact, paid into the system.

Ben Shaprio peppers his Nov. 18 column, published by CNSNews.com, with some "jokes" that are painfully unfunny because they are so clearly borne of his screeching hatred of President Obama, his administration, and pretty much any liberal:

Are Barack Obama’s poll numbers up, or is Janet Napolitano just happy to see us?

This week, the TSA began installing full-body scanners in airports across the country. TSA employees will be viewing us in our birthday suits each time we fly. Pregnant women and children will not be subjected to these scans due to low doses of radiation; frequent fliers, however, will soon be glowing in the dark.

If we opt not to participate in such full-body scans, we will be subjected to Paris Hilton-style pat-downs by members of the same gender (TSA employees will be baffled by Chaz/Chastity Bono). The TSA has announced that pat-downs, in fact, are not enough—screeners will utilize a “hand-sliding motion” to examine passengers’ genitals, buttocks and breasts. In some cases already, TSA employees have been sticking their hands down the pants of passengers.

The only question now is whether the TSA porn movie will be titled: (a) Transportation Sexuality Administration; (b) Flying The Friendly Skies; (c) The Mile High Club; or (d) Pee-Wee’s Big Airplane Adventure.

Bill Clinton is so excited that he just applied for a job at TSA. He wouldn’t be the only sexual aggressor to be working for the agency if hired.

In Shapiro's world, every TSA employee is "Bubba the Junior High Graduate" who "get[s] off on naked scans of the nearest nun." And needless to say, he embraces racial profiling:

Here’s the boilerplate disclaimer: not all Muslims are terrorists. And not all rectangles are squares. But all squares are rectangles, and every terrorist attempting to blow up American airplanes is Muslim.

In his Nov. 16 column, Brent Bozell writes about news coverage of former President Bush's new book, complaining that NBC's Matt Lauer, in a one-hour interview, "toed the liberal line" and dared to be somewhat confrontational and seemed proud that "Lauer never laid a glove" on the former president.

It seems that Bozell would have preferred the approach of Fox News and right-wing radio hosts, which used their interviews with Bush as an opportunity to rewrite his presidency by promoting false claims and misinformation about Bush's tenure.

Bozell went on to complain that news outlets "created these myths about the stupidity of Reagan and Bush," but doesn't hold his fellow right-wingers responsible for creating and maintaining myths about Bush's brilliance in office.

TSA is very much like the income-tax-administered health-care law passed by the Democrats. Health "reform" was an end run around the Constitution, using the IRS to give the government permission for something it doesn't have. So too the TSA is an end run around the Constitution. TSA is designed to give the federal government something denied it by the Constitution: A federal police force.

Now you have an inkling of how it works, America.

It wouldn't be McMillan if he didn't engage in some good old-fashioned derangement, and he delivers:

The more prestigious the university attended, the more likely it has indoctrinated its wards with communist propaganda and historical revisionist fantasies, devised by a faculty intentionally removed from daily reality. These permanently defiled grads have gone on to their rightful (in their minds) places of influence, educated to the ethical and historical level of third-graders at the time of the American Revolution.

Thanks, Mr. McMillan, for reminding us yet again why nobody should take anything you say seriously.

Standard CNSNews.com style is to use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay." Terry Jeffrey largely breaks with that style in his Nov. 17 column.

Why? Perhaps because Jeffrey's column is syndicated, and he knows that no self-respecting newspaper editor would put up with a right-wing construct designed to be insulting to gays.

Jeffrey's column, by the way, is intended to demonstrate that "there can be no such thing as a pro-gay-agenda conservative":

By definition, conservatives are against the gay agenda because the gay agenda ultimately seeks to overturn the moral order that makes freedom possible. Fidelity to the natural law—including in the laws of our land—is at the very core of what conservatives seek to conserve.

Jeffrey never explains what the "gay agenda" is.

Jeffrey specifically targets the gay-conservative group GOProud, claiming that "most of the new Republicans elected to Congress on Nov. 2 told voters they were pro-life and pro-marriage. What GOProud and its allies are saying to these new congressmen is that when they get to Washington, D.C., they should not act on the principles they told voters they stood for when they ran for office. That can hardly be a tenet of the tea party."

David Thompson is a youth whose father, as a present for his 13th birthday, gave him the opportunity to meet with "52 godly men, men of character and integrity who would not only be able to share from their wealth of experience in business and professions but also in the greater arena of how to approach life from the perspective of someone who is committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ." David's experiences are detailed on his blog.

Nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it's an interesting and creative idea. Unfortunately, one of these "godly men" chosen to spend time with David is Molotov Mitchell.

David writes that he got to hang with Molotov at his video operation and attend a Krav Maga martial-arts class with him. Molotov even made him the subject of his latest WorldNetDaily video, in which he "joked" that Molotov "took me hunting liberals," complete with playing with a huge assault rifle:

Now, is someone who who allow a 13-year-old to "joke" about "hunting liberals" really a "godly man"? Is someone who despises gays so much that he seems to be encouraging violence against them and has no objection to a law that would execute them merely for being gay a "godly man"? Is someone who would repeatedly lie and misinform about those he despises a "godly man"?

We would argue that he is not. It's sad that David Thompson and his father apparently think he is.